@PennyI never said nature was all good (in fact I purposefully didn't because I figured you might use your above point). I said randomness is fair. But to tackle your point, drugs and vaccines are preventative to diseases to increase your chances of surviving. Changing a humans physical traits to suit your whims is simply giving control to those who shouldn't have it.

Most people would agree that a good parent raises their kids, and a poor or overbearing parent controls them. In nearly every case (at least in western society), a parent has a responsibility for their kids life, not a domination over their kids life. Changing physical traits goes beyond the nurturing and teaching, and it simply makes the kid into another tool to suit their tastes. Yes, it's my opinion and in the end I can't prove how it would make the world worse. We'd just need to wait and see. I just cannot see what benefits it would it have other than making a kid easy on the eyes to a (likely) high maintenance parent.

I still fail to see how a selection by the parents is any more objectionable than a random selection for a pool of alleles. Why shouldn't parents who hope for a girl with brown eyes have the option of selecting one? They are already choosing to bring a child into the world, its hard to imagine a more deterministic action than that. People can abort a fetus (in some places) a choice that is orders of magnitude more impactful than picking curly hair over straight. If the parents then decide this gives them some sort of creepy divine right over the child, that is an argument against those particular parents rather than the use of the technology itself.

Randomness isn't fairness its just randomness.

Also we should think bigger in terms of our potential fuck ups. Imagine instead of cosmetic changes, novel forms of neurotransmitters that increase reaction time, rewiring nerves to make the paths less tortured, increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin. Creating humans that are better in measurable ways. Now imagine the technology is necessarily expensive and thus unevenly distributed, the dystopian possibilities are endless.

@PennyWell sure people can choose to abort a fetus, but there is still a very large argument on whether or not that is 'good' and I can see no inherent goodness in choosing traits for kids.

Why shouldn't parents who hope for a girl with brown eyes have the option of selecting one?

Because the child didn't select it.

Because it effects the child with no inherent goodness towards the child.

Here is my point: Imagine if a parent needs to make a permanent decision about their child. There's two reasonings they would use for their decision.
1) It is good for the child.
2) It is good for the parent.

If you have chosen number 2, that is inherently selfish imo.

Also we should think bigger in terms of our potential fuck ups. Imagine instead of cosmetic changes, novel forms of neurotransmitters that increase reaction time, rewiring nerves to make the paths less tortured, increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin. Creating humans that are better in measurable ways. Now imagine the technology is necessarily expensive and thus unevenly distributed, the dystopian possibilities are endless.

This is why I love Sci Fi^^

We should use this for the RP tbh.

<Snipped quote>
Because the child didn't select it.

Equally true in the case of natural random distribution.

Because it effects the child with no inherent goodness towards the child.

So? It isn't any worse than allowing a random distribution.

Here is my point: Imagine if a parent needs to make a permanent decision about their child. There's two reasonings they would use for their decision.
1) It is good for the child.
2) It is good for the parent.

If you have chosen number 2, that is inherently selfish imo.

That is a false dichotomy. Decisions maybe good, they maybe bad, they may be neither, they may have mixed results. The child will have a hair color, selecting it in advance dosent negatively effect the child. No other negative effect flow from that choice which might not flow from a random assignment.

Is your hangup that a parent is making a permanent aesthetic choice for their child? Because the child doesn't choose in either case. Seems a little odd to give some sort of privileged status to a random selection over a parental choice.

<Snipped quote by Penny>
This is why I love Sci Fi^^

We should use this for the RP tbh.

I saw GATACA, didn't love it :P

Equally true in the case of natural random distribution.
So? It isn't any worse than allowing a random distribution.

No one made the decision with random distribution. Therefore there is no blame.

That is a false dichotomy. Decisions maybe good, they maybe bad, they may be neither, they may have mixed results. The child will have a hair color, selecting it in advance dosent negatively effect the child. No other negative effect flow from that choice which might not flow from a random assignment.

Is your hangup that a parent is making a permanent aesthetic choice for their child? Because the child doesn't choose in either case. Seems a little odd to give some sort of privileged status to a random selection over a parental choice.

It would only be a false dichotomy if you misread the wording, or if I just didn't type clearly enough. I should have put
1) They believe it is good for the child.
2) They believe it is good for the parent. (Though it'd be hard for them not to know)

But there is no other alternative for the dichotomy that I can see. My hangup is the parents taking a choice into their hands they shouldn't have. But if it's ok for the parents to do it, then arguably it's ok for the president to choose the physical features of american citizens. Or an older brother getting to choose the physical features of a younger brother in the womb. The citizen or the brother can't decide, so why not them?

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I saw GATACA, didn't love it :P

*Googles* Aw, it wasn't good? I've not seen it. 40K has that too, and so does Shadowrun and the Dredd series...I think. Lotta stuff.

This has got to be the first time we've actually disagreed and taken over the thread instead of reading someone else's claims and diagreeing with them.

This has got to be the first time we've actually disagreed and taken over the thread instead of reading someone else's claims and diagreeing with them.

Yeah we are torching our Mr and Mrs Smith meme, although I guess they fight in the movie too.

It would only be a false dichotomy if you misread the wording, or if I just didn't type clearly enough. I should have put
1) They believe it is good for the child.
2) They believe it is good for the parent. (Though it'd be hard for them not to know)

You could also believe that it will have a neutral effect on the child and be good for the parent, or a good effect on the child and a bad effect on the parent. My contention is that choosing a feature such as hair color has neither a positive or negative effect on the child.

My hangup is the parents taking a choice into their hands they shouldn't have. But if it's ok for the parents to do it, then arguably it's ok for the president to choose the physical features of american citizens. Or an older brother getting to choose the physical features of a younger brother in the womb. The citizen or the brother can't decide, so why not them?

Is there a particular reason the parents shouldn't have the choice, rather than rolling the dice? As for the other stuff thats kind of a stretch that relies on among other things, physical standards for citizenship which would be a huge and independent issue. A brother could throw his opinion out there I guess, but he wouldn't have any legal power to enforce it.

If I had the option to genetically tailor my child I would take it in a heartbeat. The chances of mental illness could be dramatically reduced and their life outcomes could be improved by selecting genes related to intelligence and health. They would be happier, healthier and wealthier. Were I a parent I would find myself obligated to do everything I could to give them the best chance in life and DNA is no exception to the responsibilities of motherhood.

Yeah we are torching our Mr and Mrs Smith meme, although I guess they fight in the movie too.

That's true...
It's an underrated movie tbh.

You could also believe that it will have a neutral effect on the child and be good for the parent, or a good effect on the child and a bad effect on the parent. My contention is that choosing a feature such as hair color has neither a positive or negative effect on the child.

Is there a particular reason the parents shouldn't have the choice, rather than rolling the dice? As for the other stuff thats kind of a stretch that relies on among other things, physical standards for citizenship which would be a huge and independent issue. A brother could throw his opinion out there I guess, but he wouldn't have any legal power to enforce it.

You could believe that, but there'd be no way to know exactly, and (in my opinion) in the end it would do nothing but ensure the parent's comfort. I can only say for certain how I'd feel, and while my appearance isn't so important to me, I was glad to be different looking growing up and it gave me my confidence, and if my parents chose to make me whiter like mom almost all of my life would be altered little by little. But even if I was born that way out of random chance, it would bring me comfort knowing I had no one to blame for it and that I was made by chance rather than my dad/mom feeling a certain way 26 years ago.

And if I am speaking purely personally other than only somewhat with my experiences, I am a Christian too and even looking past a parent's responsibility, which I think choosing traits does go past their responsibility no matter your belief, I do think it's something you should be proud of because it's chosen by God.

Also I just think that if the child really wouldn't be effected by the change, it really wouldn't matter who switched it up. The president, the brother, the doctor. The kid won't know any different so why does it matter?

If I had the option to genetically tailor my child I would take it in a heartbeat. The chances of mental illness could be dramatically reduced and their life outcomes could be improved by selecting genes related to intelligence and health. They would be happier, healthier and wealthier. Were I a parent I would find myself obligated to do everything I could to give them the best chance in life and DNA is no exception to the responsibilities of motherhood.

Oh we're just talking aesthetically. Like parent's choosing gender, eye color, hair color, etc. But yes, I think we'd all choose good genetic traits for them for their health.

@POOHEAD189

By that logic wouldn't your terrible genetic disease be just as much a part appointed by God as you blue eyes? If it is wrong to doctor your appearance then it would be wrong to doctor the disease.

It seems to me that appealing to randomness to make you not feel bitter about ones parents decisions is a weakish argument. Sorry but I really don't see much to go on here other than 'its not natural'. Your parent already exercise some control as to your physical appearance via the choice of partner. It is the same distinction between naturally selecting crops and genetically engineering them. Maybe you can restate this to clarify it for me?

How does the fact that it dosent matter to the child lead you to 'well the president could make the decision'. Parents (mothers prebirth IMO) are responsible for decisions effecting their child and just because it is unimportant dosen't magically give the president a right to interfere. Pretty sure people would get up in arms if Trump started mandating genital mutilation although it is a little hard to tell with his supporters.

By that logic wouldn't your terrible genetic disease be just as much a part appointed by God as you blue eyes? If it is wrong to doctor your appearance then it would be wrong to doctor the disease.

Well 'doctor' has two meanings there. But if we take a theological look at it...
Jesus healed people of diseases, and told others to do thus. But it's also gospel that God creates man into who he/she is, not other people.

It seems to me that appealing to randomness to make you not feel bitter about ones parents decisions is a weakish argument. Sorry but I really don't see much to go on here other than 'its not natural'. Your parent already exercise some control as to your physical appearance via the choice of partner. It is the same distinction between naturally selecting crops and genetically engineering them. Maybe you can restate this to clarify it for me?

I think appealing to randomness so as not to feel bitter is just as good of an argument as a parent going 'I felt like it.' Or, I think it's a better argument because it's the child's feelings on their own features that are put into main account, not the parents.

My main concern is the ethics of it, and while that is subjective, I already admitted it's just my opinion.

How does the fact that it dosent matter to the child lead you to 'well the president could make the decision'. Parents (mothers prebirth IMO) are responsible for decisions effecting their child and just because it is unimportant dosen't magically give the president a right to interfere. Pretty sure people would get up in arms if Trump started mandating genital mutilation although it is a little hard to tell with his supporters.

I was simply reiterating the logic that if it's the same with the parents choosing as it is with natural selection, then take away the legal part of it, it'd be the same if anyone chose it.

If random chance effects a child just as much or as little as parental choice, then a doctor choosing the child's physical traits will effect the child the same as the other two. What you were talking about is the child wouldn't see it differently so why does it matter? I'm simply adding onto that and saying, in this fictional universe with this fictional technology, what if there was no law against the head of state or the doctor choosing the child's traits? I think for a parent to say "but it's my child" can easily be debunked by the child going "but it's my face" if they could.

@PennySorry didn't tag :P

<Snipped quote>
Well 'doctor' has two meanings there. But if we take a theological look at it...
Jesus healed people of diseases, and told others to do thus. But it's also gospel that God creates man into who he/she is, not other people.

There would be little theoretical difference between changing hair color and editing the gene which causes a genetic disorder. They are both physical features and it is simply genetic information. This seems to unduly privilege visible physical features.

I think appealing to randomness so as not to feel bitter is just as good of an argument as a parent going 'I felt like it.' Or, I think it's a better argument because it's the child's feelings on their own features that are put into main account, not the parents.

How is 'I felt like it' any worse than 'its just random'. A child's feeling on their features are emergent in either case. If your kid hates the way it looks you can just throw up your hands and say 'hey its just the luck of the draw'?

If random chance effects a child just as much or as little as parental choice, then a doctor choosing the child's physical traits will effect the child the same as the other two. What you were talking about is the child wouldn't see it differently so why does it matter? I'm simply adding onto that and saying, in this fictional universe with this fictional technology, what if there was no law against the head of state or the doctor choosing the child's traits? I think for a parent to say "but it's my child" can easily be debunked by the child going "but it's my face" if they could.

I'm still not sure what your trying to say here and how it is in anyway relevant other than as some sort of weird dystopian aside. The parents choose to make the child (hopefully). There are all sorts of decisions they make that affect its future success (diet, maternal age ect) how is hair color suddenly a bridge to far for parental control?

There would be little theoretical difference between changing hair color and editing the gene which causes a genetic disorder. They are both physical features and it is simply genetic information. This seems to unduly privilege visible physical features.

I agree.

How is 'I felt like it' any worse than 'its just random'. A child's feeling on their features are emergent in either case. If your kid hates the way it looks you can just throw up your hands and say 'hey its just the luck of the draw'?

In most cases I believe the child would feel better, yes. If they even asked 'why do I look like this' which is hardly on people's minds because with no technology such as this, it's nearly a non issue.

I'm still not sure what your trying to say here and how it is in anyway relevant other than as some sort of weird dystopian aside. The parents choose to make the child (hopefully). There are all sorts of decisions they make that affect its future success (diet, maternal age ect) how is hair color suddenly a bridge to far for parental control?

I could be confused on your point. Wasn't your logic "why is it bad if it theoretically does not negatively effect the child?"

Although I re-read your quote. This is my point.

There are all sorts of decisions they make that affect its future success

While I, myself would still be uncomfortable with it. I wouldn't be against it on an intellectual level if it was for the child's betterment. If changing their hair or eye color would increase the success of the child, then I'm all for it. It was when the parent fancied something regardless of how they thought the child felt was when I was against it.

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>
Oh we're just talking aesthetically. Like parent's choosing gender, eye color, hair color, etc. But yes, I think we'd all choose good genetic traits for them for their health.

I mentioned health but I didn't just mention health Poohead.
I don't see any reason to not select traits considered attractive by the society I currently live in because a person who is conventionally attractive has better life outcomes on average than someone who is unattractive. Thus I would also select for aesthetic traits so they would have the most options when selecting a partner and the best odds of enjoying a satisfying relationship. Aesthetics aren't just cosmetics in our society. On average physically attractive people make more money, are seen as more capable by their peers and have an easier time making friends.

@POOHEAD189
Maybe my Kuru is acting up but this seems to make less sense the more you explain it. Let me recapitulate.

Even if it were only for the parents aesthetic benefit, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't tip the scale of random selection one way or the other. They are choosing to create a child, why not choose for it to have dark lustrous hair?

Why would randomness necessarily be better than design? You might end up with a girl anyway, why not put your thumb on the scale. Admittedly its not a great use of what would be amazing tech, but neither is 99% of what people do with tech.

The argument of genetic augmentation and alteration is that once you start down that path, where does it end? You would need create some sort of regulatory standards that relate strictly to giving the unborn an advantage that is only preventive, so as to avoid some mental or physical defects; anything beyond quickly becomes rampant designer choices or removes the fairness of a randomly dealt hand, an experience we are all more or less currently subjected to. This is totally ignoring that a person's identity might be well tied into their defects. Is it sincere or really in the best interest of the child to tamper with something they had no choice in? They already do not choose their parents, let alone their strengths or weaknesses, so how is it better to make them into what the parents wish them to be? Especially in a context where they cannot just "easily" change that about themselves?

Unquestionably if this were a realistic option a good parent would attempt to act on this, hopefully for the right reasons of wanting the best for their child as @Kratesis said. What we all know is that people would exploit these ends and design children they want to love. It raises an uncomfortable question of, "If I were different than how my parents made me, would they still love me?" Children already question how much they are or are not loved extensively, even if not in active, continuous thought.

While I am a proponent of using genetic engineering to mitigate potential threats to life and wellness, I accept that I would almost rather that not be an option for it opens a doorway to greater abuse, assuming I must elect one option. I do not look forward to a world of supermen and superwomen. Not just because I revere nature, but because it sets a standard of no more equal opportunity. As it is, not all people are biologically equal as some have inherent advantages that no amount of training or practice can make up for, but they did not choose these traits or have them chosen for them; they received them in the way any one of us could have. Creating a gap as small as allowing cosmetic changes allows for impactful changes to be made by less scrupulous sorts.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I mentioned health but I didn't just mention health Poohead.
I don't see any reason to not select traits considered attractive by the society I currently live in because a person who is conventionally attractive has better life outcomes on average than someone who is unattractive. Thus I would also select for aesthetic traits so they would have the most options when selecting a partner and the best odds of enjoying a satisfying relationship. Aesthetics aren't just cosmetics in our society. On average physically attractive people make more money, are seen as more capable by their peers and have an easier time making friends.

That is well put. Again you child might be Taylor Swift randomly, the potential exists, so why not maximize it. Sure the child might have issues if aesthetic values change dramatically, or you move to another society which values different things but those risks would exist just as much for the random characteristics as the designed ones.